AD #3049 – Biden’s Huge Infrastructure Plan; Chip Shortage Hits Ford’s F-150; Hyundai Teases Santa Cruz Pickup

April 1st, 2021 at 11:56am

ZF 468 x 60 driving intelligence March 29 2021

Audio-only version:
Listen to “AD #3049 – Biden's Huge Infrastructure Plan; Chip Shortage Hits Ford's F-150; Hyundai Teases Santa Cruz Pickup” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 8:22

0:07 GM Offered to Design Next-Gen Zamboni
0:38 Kona N Not What You Think
1:00 IIHS Teams Up With Denture Company
1:28 3-Cylinder Owners Cry Collusion
1:46 Lamborghini Makes Reverse Lambo Doors
2:54 VW Buying EV Credits From Tesla in China
3:33 Biden Rolls Out Huge Infrastructure Plan
4:16 ITC Rules in SK’s Favor on Patents
5:26 Chip Shortage Hits Ford’s Cash Cow
6:16 EVs Won’t Be Profitable for Years to Come
6:45 Hyundai Teases Santa Cruz Pickup

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: BorgWarner, Bridgestone, Intrepid Control Systems and ZF.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

46 Comments to “AD #3049 – Biden’s Huge Infrastructure Plan; Chip Shortage Hits Ford’s F-150; Hyundai Teases Santa Cruz Pickup”

  1. Buzzerd Says:

    The box on the Hyundai looks very small, I wonder if it will have a mid-gate like the Avalanche to make it a little more useful.

  2. Mark Says:

    Thank God deficits no longer matter! All hail Harris!

  3. Gatwn Says:

    I don’t think the infra plan is $1.9 trill. THat was the COVID pork. THis one I believe is over $2 trill. Probably $2.4, if I remember well.

    A trill here, a trill there, and soon enough we are talking about real money…

  4. BobD Says:

    Perhaps I’ve not been paying attention, but I saw the ZF ad for the first time in today’s show and the narrator said, “We are Zee-F” rather than “We are Zed-F”. Was that on purpose to sound more “American”, or just the announcer not knowing the traditional pronouncement of this Global/German company?

  5. wmb Says:

    I love that Santa Cruz! IMHO, the original face looked better, but I’m warming to its new look. If I hadn’t purchased a new vehicle two years ago, this, the Maverick or a Ridgeline would have been my next vehicle. Can not wait until I’m done paying for my current vehicle

  6. Rey Says:

    Tesla will eventually be the most profitable of BEV makers, having complete focus on pure BEVs helps, no stranded assets on ICE tooling and Stealerships to split profits helps ,Stealerships salespeople tend to steer buyers into ICE vehicles, because that is where the future profits lie for the outfit, in ICE Service, selling a BEV that might come back for service in 2 to 3 years kills the profit golden goose , with Ice the owner is guaranteed to come back twice a year, an ICE owner is YOYO’d back constantly. Success of future BEVs manufacturers will kill STEALERSHIPS.

  7. XA351GT Says:

    That Biden story was a cruel April Fool joke. But on the upside I hear he is going to be the poster boy for the holiday.

  8. Rey Says:

    #3, Canadians say Zed not Zee!,and we are North Americans

  9. Kevin A Says:

    Sean, I loved the next-gen Zamboni bit. Maybe should have taken it further like, ‘GM is re-entering the mini-van market with a Zamboni edition of the GMC Acadia aimed at Hockey Moms. In addition to the badging changes, the 4 regular doors are replaced with 2 sliding doors, one on each side. ‘

  10. Kit Gerhart Says:

    1 From the linked site, “a flexible open bed for gear.” That sounds like a mid gate. I wonder if the back seat can be easily removed, to make it better for carrying stuff, if the back seat isn’t needed.

  11. Kevin A Says:

    Any information one the Chevy Tornado van in Mexico, plus the related small pickup and car?

  12. Lambo2015 Says:

    So Biden is going to spend 1.9 trillion or $5740 per US person on infrastructure for EVs. Does that seem like a good investment for a product that is only getting 2% of annual sales. Many people have pointed out that installing chargers all over isn’t going to drive people toward EVs. Most will really want them when they can charge at home and the other public chargers are just to resolve range anxiety and for convenience.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    5 Teslas must need more service than we are led to believe, seeing all of the cars lined up at the service department at the soon-to-open Tesla store near me.

  14. Gatwn Says:

    11 Wrong. read the news again, carefully this time. Less than 10% of the 1.9 trill is going to EVs. And it will be probably the only % of the 1.9 trillion that will be legitimate infrastructure spending. The rest will be pork and you will get nothing for it. Like in Obama’s so-called stimulus plan.

  15. Kit Gerhart Says:

    11 If some of the money is to making charging available for those of us who can’t charge at home, it would increase the demand for EVs. Still, unless things really change, EVs will not be popular as an “only car” for a lot of people.

  16. Rey Says:

    @1:00 BMW s are good candidates for dentists and Orthodontists,they can do a number on Beaver

  17. ChuckGrenci Says:

    From the latest Autoline stories over the last couple weeks (and more), it appears that come 2025 all will be known (and profitable). Personally I don’t feel that this epiphany is going to happen. Some will, some won’t, but I see the timeline as being a whole lot more fuzzy (and more distant than predicted).

    If you don’t see the “pork” in all these stimulus bills and now the infrastructure bill, you’ve taken the bait: hook, line and sinker. I believe that an infrastructure bill is needed however, but raising corporate taxes just passes them on to us (the current tax payers/consumers) as prices will rise and probably inflation.

  18. Marshy Says:

    “Software defined vehicle” that’s the first time I’ve heard that phrase. Probably more true every day.

    And to pile on: Zed Eff!

  19. George Ricci Says:

    It’s only another $1.9T! Yes, Mr. Biden can get some of it from corporations and the ultra rich, but not all of it. Just add it to the already huge and growing deficit with no balance budget or repayment in sight. At some point in the future this will come to head and it won’t be pretty. Are you ready for it? How about your children?

  20. 1949view Says:

    16. Agreed. As to the so-called “infrastructure bill”, hopefully most will see it was cleverly named to hide the fact only about 9% of funding would go for the needed infrastructure, with the lion’s share funding a progressive hodgepodge of projects (“Solyndra on steroids”). Given such poorly camoflaged, central office messaging, the private sector had better wake up before it finds government openly mandating what to build, what to charge and when to build it.

  21. Roger Says:

    Where will all these battery materials come from? 3rd world countries without any concern for the environmental damage caused. FOOLISH!

  22. Kit Gerhart Says:

    19 The 2017 tax cuts for the rich cost about 1.9T. Reverse them, and the infrastructure package will be mostly paid for.

    Anyway, here’s what’s in the bill, though everyone knows it’s not likely to become law in its present form.

  23. Ed Says:

    Biden /Harris 1.9 T infrastructure… was done before. And gave the USSR the “Lada” and its associated crumbling architecture. But seems like anything that has failed in the past is good to keep trying to see if it may someday work. You see “This time” will be different because of who is doing it. Nuance. it’s about nuance.

  24. Maxx Says:

    Your report said Biden wants to electrify the entire school bus fleet. In another report I read, it said only 20% of the school bus fleet would be electrified.

    For those who don’t know, the school bus fleet in the United States is the largest single mass transit fleet in the nation, coming in at just south of 500,000 vehicles. They transport about 25 million kids per day.

    So whether it’s the “full” fleet or only 20% makes a huge difference.

  25. Lambo2015 Says:

    14 Yeah sorry of the 1.9 T only 174B is earmarked for EV chargers. Still take that amount and divided by each tax payer and its just over $1000 each.. The original post I divided by population of 330M Americans but actually according to the IRS only 165,624,000 Americans file taxes. So removing the kids and really just those of us that pay taxes the 1.9T is more like $11,471 per person.. Kind of puts in in perspective.

  26. George Ricci Says:

    Question: Is it the Federal, or State, or City governments responsible to creating a refueling infrastructure for vehicles? NO!

  27. Gatwn Says:

    In today’s Cars& Bids auctions, several stunning results.

    A 1991 silly-quirky Nissan Figaro, a kei car not imported in the US but brought and titled here, sold for… $20,000.

    Next to it, a beautiful maroon 2001 911 Carrera coupe sold for only $16,246, and, worse, a V12 Mercedes CL600 (the CL is even more expensive than the S class from which it is derived) sold for only $9,200. Admittedly those V12s had much lower HP than current V8 AMGs.

    A mint, low-mile 2005 Maybach 57 fetched $60,100.

    A final note re the Infrastructure tax, the cowards in the WH did not dare get the revenues either by a gas tax increase, or by an even fairer user fee, using mileage.

    Instead, they do the usual dance. “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the fellow behind the tree”, ie your children and grandchildren.

    And as Chuck Grenci correctly pointed out, all these tax increases will result in inflation, as will the preposterous increase in the minimum wage, which they want $15/hr regardless if you work in ultra-expensive NY or SF, or in rural Mississippi.

    The min wage increase will result in both massive unemployment among the most lowly-paid workers, a n d an increase in prices. Enjoy!

  28. Kit Gerhart Says:

    26 They subsidized it a lot in the early days of gas cars, and still subsidize some aspects of it.

  29. Bob Wilson Says:

    So 75% of all USA EVs are Tesla but 100% of the EV charger money will got to CCS-1 only chargers … the favorite of EU made EVs.

  30. Kit Gerhart Says:

    28 Can’t Teslas use them, with adapters, probably sold by Tesla?

  31. George Ricci Says:

    27. How about some examples or links to support your statements?

  32. Kit Gerhart Says:


  33. Kit Gerhart Says:

    …and some earlier times.

  34. cwolf Says:

    I fail to see what the problem is about jump starting our economy and to finally offer a rebuilding program that has been ignored for decades. Both rep. and dems agree so why make this a political issue? Trickle down economics only served the rich. Placing focus on those who actually paid most of the taxes, on the middle class and offering opportunities to trade welfare for taxable living wages seems like a winning situation to me. These average folk will be the ones to rebuild our bridges, fix the lead pipes and roads, not the wealthy.

  35. George Ricci Says:

    31 an 32. Your links are for subsidies used for exploration and production of fossil fuels. I talking about the “refueling infrastructure for vehicles”. Whether it be EV charging stations or California spending $300 million plus of tax payer money to build 100 hydrogen filling station for few thousand vehicles. This is the job of private enterprise NOT government.

    Now if talking about funding research to find a much more efficient way of manufacture hydrogen which the federal government is currently doing, I support that.

  36. George Ricci Says:

    33. No one is saying we should not spend any money on infrastructure. The problem is where to get the money from. Neither the Rep or Dem are willing to make the tough decisions to balance the budget. My point is your not going to get all $1.9T taxing corporations and the rich, and increasing the deficit is making a bad problem worst. Other people are pointing out there are a lot of things in there that have nothing to do with infrastructure.

  37. cwolf Says:

    George , I get it! What was proposed is only a foundation to be negotiated between the cabinets, then approved. It is one thing to identify and amend the weaknesses, but the right wingers total commitment to kill it just because it is not their idea is destructive; espesially when the majority of voters from both sides believe it is worthy.
    This president thus far has proven his commitement to put country first and has given no indication of favoritism.
    Biden deserves to be given a chance, yet the Trumpites continue to only feed on past lies because they cannot accept 4 years of disgrace.

  38. Kit Gerhart Says:

    34 I just linked the first hits that came up for oil subsidies. Yes, the production of gasoline itself was the issue in the early 1900s and was subsidized, as it needed to be. Now, the actual fueling facilities for alternative energy vehicle is the issue, and may need to be subsidized.

    35 The 2017 tax cuts cost near $2T. Yeah, as long as there is a combination of high spending, and the myth of “trickle down” with the associated low tax rates for the wealthy still having favor, balanced budgets are unlikely.

  39. cwolf Says:

    There isn’t an ecomomist worried about a balanced budget as long as the economy grows and inflation is kept in check. The main focus is to excite the economy, reduce unemployment and to beat this COVID situation. Increasing corporate taxs to a fair level is a sound measure that will have little inpact upon their bottom line. If you look at what good became of the present lower taxes, it should be quit evident by now that it has done nill for the country, but only made millioairs billionairs at the cost of everyone else.

  40. Drew Says:

    @38 – I think your keyboard is malfunctioning… missing and extraneous letters in several words.

    “Increasing corporate taxes to a fair level…”!?!?!?! What’s fair? Is it fair to increase the tax levied to onshore employers, when imports don’t employ the same number of Americans and will pay contribute very little to your “fair level” tax? Simply stated, higher corporate taxes kill jobs. Other countries address this inequity with added-value taxes that don’t discriminate between domestic and import consumption.

    What’s an added-value tax (?), you ask. Think of it like a national sales tax, but be prepared for the assault from extreme lefties who call all sales taxes “regressive”. Nonsense.

  41. Kit Gerhart Says:

    39 All the 2017 tax cuts did was balloon the deficit and debt during an ongoing recovery.

  42. Kit Gerhart Says:

    39. The “official” US corporate rates might be fair, about the same as the EU, except loop holes allow avoidance by companies like Amazon, while Jeff Bezos becomes $75B wealthier in one year.

  43. Drew Says:

    41. Agree. The answer is to fix the loop holes. Increasing the corporate tax rate doesn’t do that.

  44. Bob Wilson Says:

    There are competing, fast DC chargers: (1) Tesla; (2) CCS-1, and (3) CHAdeMO. If the charger subsidies were proportional to the EV sales, no problem. But it is likely the chargers will only be CCS-1.

    Tesla sells about 79% of all USA EVs (see web link.) But an exclusive, CCS-1 charger will be usable by only 21%, 1 of 5, EVs. If the subsidy did not mandate the charging plug, it could work.

    The subsidy should focus on charging spots, peak charging rate and grid power buffer. Something along the lines of 250-500 kW peak rate; 500-1000 kWh energy storage with bi-directional grid connection. Each ‘station’ should have a minimum of 6-8 parking spots with an idle or parking abuse mechanism.

  45. Kit Gerhart Says:

    It looks like Tesla has CCS adapters, but doesn’t sell them in the US.

  46. joe Says:

    I think Bloomburg is full of it. If they were correct, then GM and others would surely go out of business.